Case Law Details
Mr. Vivek Gupta Vs M/s Gurukripa Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than what he was entitled to charge and has also compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
This Report dated 28.11.2018. has been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 25.04.2018 had forwarded an application dated 04.01.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 and 2 (here-in-after referred to as the Applicants) to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicants had stated in their complaint that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the purchase of Flat No. A701, constructed by the Respondent in his “Vrindavan Yojna Project”, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow. The Applicants had further alleged that the Respondent had increased the price of the flat after implementation of the Goods & Service Tax (GST) w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by them. They had also claimed that the Respondent had committed contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence appropriate action should be taken against him.
2. The Standing Committee vide the minutes of its meetings dated 07.08.2018 & 08.08.2018 had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients or not?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
